Guest guest Posted October 15, 2007 Report Share Posted October 15, 2007 Hi all, This discussion is proof positive of why it is necessary to learn and practice qi gong if one wants to have any sort of authority in the practice of CM. The practice of (not the thinking of, not the analysis of, not the obsessive-compulsive reduction of) Qi Gong answers so many of these questions. My suggestion: you want understanding and answers? Practice and Do, rather than talk. Talking about Qi and the classics are dead activities. Qi Gong opens your eyes. Hugo establishment_man <establishment_man Chinese Medicine Saturday, 13 October, 2007 1:48:18 PM Re: The Soul / Shen / Hun etc. Tymothy, This is part of the question I am raising. Are the 'classics' intrinsicly correct. We know (more or less) what they say, but does their very existence render them correct? If we look at your average pre-industrial science or medical textbook from one or two thousand years ago, how reliable should we assume that data to be? Much of the material of the classics holds up in clinical practice to this day, but I am not so sure about all of the mechanisms and assumptions that underly the theories of CM. And I am especially apprehensive about accepting these ideas as fact simply because they were written down a long time ago by people in a far away land. This type of acceptence seems to me to border on religious faith, and blurs the line between medicine and religion. EM Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine , " miracles28 " <jellyphish@ ...> wrote: > > One only has to read the classics to know that this IS chinese > medicine. The materialists pulled much of the spiritual connotations > out, but the fact is that any practitioner of chinese medicine > throughout history would have utilised these concepts to one degree or > another depending on their own development. > The concept of the little Dao applies, you do not treat people just to > get them well, you do it because you have the opportunity to do it, > because you understand that it is more than you. If you are not > cultivating yourself, you are not, as far as the classics indicate, > truly practicing chinese medicine. These concepts give focus to how > one can go about becoming not only a better practitioner but a better > human. > Tymothy > > > Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine , " Z'ev Rosenberg " > <zrosenbe@> wrote: > > > > I think these notions are very difficult to understand outside of > > their cultural context, but they can be applied at different levels, > > such as emotional and consciousness connections with the five yin > > viscera. I think we should simply keep an open mind to all > > possibilities within the Chinese medical tradition and not dismiss > > them until they are fully understood and integrated in our own > > minds. We are still at a very early stage of adaption of Chinese > > medical and philosophical ideas, and should be careful not to reject > > anything outright. > > > > > > On Oct 12, 2007, at 11:20 AM, establishment_ man wrote: > > > > > Z'ev, > > > > > > In this discussion, it seems to have those same 'spiritual' > > > concepts. I have seen posts that talk about a consciousness that > > > survives death. This strikes me as similar to the ideas of a soul in > > > Christian theology. This would be an example of the 'spiritual > > > theories' of CM. Such and such Spirit does X, and another type of > > > Soul does Y. You know........ .the whole five spirits and the Po > > > merges with the elements and the Hun is ethereal and survives death, > > > etc. > > > > > > I just wonder if acupuncturists to these philosophical > > > notions, and if they find it important in terms of applying Chinese > > > Medicine. > > > > > > Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine > > Pacific College of Oriental Medicine > > San Diego, Ca. 92122 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2007 Report Share Posted October 16, 2007 Hugo, Interesting response. I was just thinking that this conversation is " proof " that people are willing to make all kinds of radical assumptions taht have no real basis other than personal longing, subjective perceptions, or claims made in ancient literature. Does Qigong somehow make people more willing to accept claims without evidence? If so, maybe you are right, everyone should practice it. And in so doing, it may become easier to adhere to the some of the esoteric and (possibly superstitious)claims made in the literature of OM. EM Chinese Medicine , Hugo Ramiro <subincor wrote: > > Hi all, > This discussion is proof positive of why it is necessary to learn and practice qi gong if one wants to have any sort of authority in the practice of CM. The practice of (not the thinking of, not the analysis of, not the obsessive-compulsive reduction of) Qi Gong answers so many of these questions. > My suggestion: you want understanding and answers? Practice and Do, rather than talk. Talking about Qi and the classics are dead activities. Qi Gong opens your eyes. > > Hugo > > > establishment_man <establishment_man > Chinese Medicine > Saturday, 13 October, 2007 1:48:18 PM > Re: The Soul / Shen / Hun etc. > > > > > > > Tymothy, > > > > This is part of the question I am raising. Are the 'classics' > > intrinsicly correct. We know (more or less) what they say, but does > > their very existence render them correct? > > > > If we look at your average pre-industrial science or medical textbook > > from one or two thousand years ago, how reliable should we assume > > that data to be? > > > > Much of the material of the classics holds up in clinical practice > > to this day, but I am not so sure about all of the mechanisms and > > assumptions that underly the theories of CM. > > > > And I am especially apprehensive about accepting these ideas as fact > > simply because they were written down a long time ago by people in a > > far away land. This type of acceptence seems to me to border on > > religious faith, and blurs the line between medicine and religion. > > > > EM > > > > Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine @. com, " miracles28 " > > <jellyphish@ ...> wrote: > > > > > > One only has to read the classics to know that this IS chinese > > > medicine. The materialists pulled much of the spiritual > > connotations > > > out, but the fact is that any practitioner of chinese medicine > > > throughout history would have utilised these concepts to one > > degree or > > > another depending on their own development. > > > The concept of the little Dao applies, you do not treat people > > just to > > > get them well, you do it because you have the opportunity to do it, > > > because you understand that it is more than you. If you are not > > > cultivating yourself, you are not, as far as the classics indicate, > > > truly practicing chinese medicine. These concepts give focus to how > > > one can go about becoming not only a better practitioner but a > > better > > > human. > > > Tymothy > > > > > > > > > Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine , " Z'ev > > Rosenberg " > > > <zrosenbe@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I think these notions are very difficult to understand outside > > of > > > > their cultural context, but they can be applied at different > > levels, > > > > such as emotional and consciousness connections with the five > > yin > > > > viscera. I think we should simply keep an open mind to all > > > > possibilities within the Chinese medical tradition and not > > dismiss > > > > them until they are fully understood and integrated in our own > > > > minds. We are still at a very early stage of adaption of > > Chinese > > > > medical and philosophical ideas, and should be careful not to > > reject > > > > anything outright. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 12, 2007, at 11:20 AM, establishment_ man wrote: > > > > > > > > > Z'ev, > > > > > > > > > > In this discussion, it seems to have those same 'spiritual' > > > > > concepts. I have seen posts that talk about a consciousness > > that > > > > > survives death. This strikes me as similar to the ideas of a > > soul in > > > > > Christian theology. This would be an example of the 'spiritual > > > > > theories' of CM. Such and such Spirit does X, and another type > > of > > > > > Soul does Y. You know........ .the whole five spirits and the Po > > > > > merges with the elements and the Hun is ethereal and survives > > death, > > > > > etc. > > > > > > > > > > I just wonder if acupuncturists to these > > philosophical > > > > > notions, and if they find it important in terms of applying > > Chinese > > > > > Medicine. > > > > > > > > > > > > Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine > > > > Pacific College of Oriental Medicine > > > > San Diego, Ca. 92122 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2007 Report Share Posted October 16, 2007 EM, Your response is typical of those that attempt to delegitimize direct experience of human beings as to the perception of reality, as opposed to 'data' from studies. I believe that studies designed according to the criteria of Chinese medicine can be very useful, but not the type of 'evidence-based' criteria you mention. The idea of a bias free scientific study is a modern myth, based on the dogma that somehow the observer can be objective and separate from the phenomena being studied. The whole 'evidence-based' medicine phenomenon has opponents within the biomedical world as well, as it is being used as a political sledgehammer to delegitimize even biomedical treatments, not just 'alternative' ones. The 'evidence' in Chinese medicine is in centuries of use. For example the prescriptions AND theory of the Shang Han Lun/Cold Damage Treatise and Wen Bing Xue/Warm Disease theory was developed to treat epidemic diseases, and the prescriptions survive because they saved lives. On Oct 15, 2007, at 4:38 PM, establishment_man wrote: > Hugo, > > Interesting response. I was just thinking that this conversation > is " proof " that people are willing to make all kinds of radical > assumptions taht have no real basis other than personal longing, > subjective perceptions, or claims made in ancient literature. > > Does Qigong somehow make people more willing to accept claims > without evidence? If so, maybe you are right, everyone should > practice it. And in so doing, it may become easier to adhere to the > some of the esoteric and (possibly superstitious)claims made in the > literature of OM. > > EM Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine Pacific College of Oriental Medicine San Diego, Ca. 92122 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2007 Report Share Posted October 16, 2007 Hey EM, you think you could give us your real first name? I remember, back in school, my teacher always told us, " don't worry about the theory, it's just theory, reality is the important thing " . The Buddhist tradition, as well, warns that " when pointing at the moon, don't look at the finger " . Unfortunately, these are not lessons generally learned by western scientists. Of course, there are enlightened scientists who try to keep the flock from going astray, but their words are often lost in the, um, data. Sir Arthur Eddington once made a point that science led to a world of shadow symbols, and did not actually touch upon reality: " We have learnt that the exploration of the external world by the method of physical science leads not to a concrete reality but to a shadow world of symbols, beneath which those methods are unadapted for penetrating. " The physical sciences are only ever the shadows in the cave (if you are unfamiliar w the reference, em, let me know, it is an important point). Using more mundane words we could say that the physical sciences can only ever give us an approximation(A.E. Whitehead: " Exactness is a fake " ). This is no different from saying that the physical sciences can't ever touch reality, only barely provide a facsimile. The subset cannot describe the superset. This is a familiar concept to CM, since it is stated in the root classics that reality cannot be spoken of. Then of course there's the old joke that the old teacher goes on for another few hundred words trying to describe the indescribable. When we claim that X is Y ( " some parts of CM are superstitious " ), we should keep in mind that story about the pot and the kettle. Why should we do this? Well, because, as Nietzche wrote, " he who fights with monsters should take care lest he thereby become a monster. " I was at a grand rounds recently (on the topic of what to do about patients taking, or " doing " , alternative medicine), and, astoundingly, the presenter said (remember, this is a scientist talking), " of course, we do know that conventional medicine has limits...for now. " I think their logic lobe must have been resected and a sponge left in place. In case you don't catch what I am saying, em, I am saying that it might be enlightening for you to examine, closely, what superstition means, and then to look at those who wouldn't be caught with their pants down uttering something like " there's wind in the body " , unless, of course, they were to say " run, I am about to break wind " , in which case everyone would understand what they meant without having to get into a conversation about how superstitious it is to be saying that wind could be broken, much less that they had wind in their body /to/ break. What's most interesting to me here is how modern people have so little sensibility left. I know that in clinic I spend most of my time trying to (sounds so fluffy) get people back in their bodies, essentially, to help them feel again. I imagine how easy it must be to believe " data " when one has filtered and screened out most of one's Sense. It's nonsensical! Part of the problem with people not paying attention to their bodies is that, as a consequence, they have very little understanding or insight into themselves. Even the use of language becomes automatic, without repercussion or impact - words lose their sense and meaning, and, of course, the trend becomes to use words which are less and less poetic and meaningful, and more and more technical, cold and //restricted in meaning//. I was in the local hospital once doing a treatment for a lady with cancer and nausea (as will become obvious in a moment), when I happened to run into her attending doctor as I was leaving. I received a guarded, mostly emotionless, glance from this doctor, and then she proceeded to rattle off a string of toneless words- " Some. studies. have. demonstrated. that. acupuncture. may. have. some. efficacy. in. the. treatment. of. nausea " . I looked her in the eyes and poured every ounce of energy I had into preventing my jaw from dropping. I managed to gurgle at her as I made my escape, but what I really wanted to do was to do some really good popping and locking (search " pop n lock " or " robot dance " on youtube) while I said, in a strained, robotic voice, " I. will. only. speak. to. humans. " I mentioned earlier about words becoming more and more " restricted in meaning " . I don't know if it is a peculiarity of english that it has become so unpoetic, but even spanish, which I also speak fluently, is far more poetic, and looser, if you will. But the chinese language goes far beyond that even - one really needs to study it or speak it in order to get an idea of what things mean, in order to understand how to take them. To pronounce judgements from the shelter of ignorance - because really, to judge a culture's language contructs without speaking that language is preposterous - is, I'll say it again, preposterous. I feel it important to restate the main theme of my post, and I really do feel it is the most interesting aspect of this whole situation: People, in our modern world, place so little worth on knowing themselves. It has almost no essential value. We will often fight for self-knowledge, but rather blindly, and with no real staying power. This is why the physical sciences, not the humanities, stand as the peak of our civilisation- I mean, technologisation. It is perhaps too stupid or evident a question to ask of an intelligent, modern, advanced, human being, however I still feel compelled: why are the humanities not important? (unnecessary referrals to the emperor with no clothes omitted ) Hugo establishment_man <establishment_man Chinese Medicine Saturday, 13 October, 2007 1:03:49 PM Re: The Soul / Shen / Hun etc. Hugo, I think that we could agree that these two aspects of CM maintain characteristics of religion. Many of the aspects of TCM's 'spirits' seem like rich metaphors to explain the behavior of the body's systems and the interaction of the body with pathogens. But, are we to take these things literally? Do practitioners out there believe that these spirits literally exist? And that some of them may transport an individual's consciousness from this world to another? Or from this body to another body? Or, are the spirits more metaphoric - akin to the CM idea of " Wind, " which is a useful image to describe the interaction of the body with a pathogen, but not necessarily meant as the literal presence of wind inside of the body. What say you TCM community? Are the " spirits " actual entities, or metaphoric descriptions of natural phenomena? EM Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine , Hugo Ramiro <subincor@.. .> wrote: > > Hi all... I believe we are on the western dualism thing now. CM is > explicit in its statements regarding the spirit, emotions and body and > the place of all of these in the world. Can anyone show us the dividing > lines? CM says there are none. > All of this is one thing, choosing > what to communicate to a px on a case-by-case basis is something else. > And let's not throw " religion " into the mix > because /that/ would certainly be projecting western values onto CM. > Hugo > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _ > Switch an email account to Mail, you could win FIFA World Cup tickets. http://uk.mail. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2007 Report Share Posted October 16, 2007 Just as an aside, pot calling the kettle black and such - " claims without evidence " . Would you like to share with the group on the basis of which study or research you claim that Qi Gong constitutes errm, to be blunt, mind control? Just in case you try pass it off to me, no one in this conversation, except for you, said or implied that Qi Gong might " somehow make people more willing to accept claims without evidence " . I am assuming that it was a baseless assertion. If in fact this assertion has no basis in research, or other types of evidence, then on what basis do you make this assertion? I am wondering if you will adhere to your standard. Hugo establishment_man <establishment_man Does Qigong somehow make people more willing to accept claims without evidence? If so, maybe you are right, everyone should practice it. And in so doing, it may become easier to adhere to the some of the esoteric and (possibly superstitious) claims made in the literature of OM. EM _________ Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it now. http://uk.answers./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2007 Report Share Posted October 17, 2007 Zev, Thank you for noticing! I intend to de-legitimize direct experience of human being as to the perception of reality. This is because human perceptions are so intrinsically fallible and our assumptions about reality are so fundmentally contaminated by bias. By no means am I dismissing the theory and practice of Chinese Medicine. I just think there are certain aspects to it that require a leap of faith by virtue of the fact that there is no other rationale that would justify their acceptance. And, I prefer to keep faith- based initiatives out of my medicine wherever possible. EM Chinese Medicine , " " <zrosenbe wrote: > > EM, > Your response is typical of those that attempt to delegitimize > direct experience of human beings as to the perception of reality, as > opposed to 'data' from studies. I believe that studies designed > according to the criteria of Chinese medicine can be very useful, but > not the type of 'evidence-based' criteria you mention. The idea of a > bias free scientific study is a modern myth, based on the dogma that > somehow the observer can be objective and separate from the phenomena > being studied. The whole 'evidence-based' medicine phenomenon has > opponents within the biomedical world as well, as it is being used as > a political sledgehammer to delegitimize even biomedical treatments, > not just 'alternative' ones. The 'evidence' in Chinese medicine is > in centuries of use. For example the prescriptions AND theory of the > Shang Han Lun/Cold Damage Treatise and Wen Bing Xue/Warm Disease > theory was developed to treat epidemic diseases, and the > prescriptions survive because they saved lives. > > > On Oct 15, 2007, at 4:38 PM, establishment_man wrote: > > > Hugo, > > > > Interesting response. I was just thinking that this conversation > > is " proof " that people are willing to make all kinds of radical > > assumptions taht have no real basis other than personal longing, > > subjective perceptions, or claims made in ancient literature. > > > > Does Qigong somehow make people more willing to accept claims > > without evidence? If so, maybe you are right, everyone should > > practice it. And in so doing, it may become easier to adhere to the > > some of the esoteric and (possibly superstitious)claims made in the > > literature of OM. > > > > EM > > > Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine > Pacific College of Oriental Medicine > San Diego, Ca. 92122 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2007 Report Share Posted October 17, 2007 Hugo, I do not have any study or research that claim that Qigong is mind control. I don't believe I ever said it is. Earlier in this thread you said that This discussion is proof positive of why it is necessary to learn and practice qi gong if one wants to have any sort of authority in the practice of CM. That's why I responded with the question; Does Qigong somehow make people more willing to accept claims without evidence? If so, maybe you are right, everyone should practice it. You said that Qigong *opens your eyes* and that it *answers many of these questions.* My question was whether or not people who practice CM believe in the idea of an Taoist afterlife, or a soul that survives death. Or do people think this is a primitive relic of CM's poetic past. Does Qigong answer that question? Or open one's eyes to the existence of an ethereal soul? If so, I'd like to hear what your experience has revealed. EM Chinese Medicine , Hugo Ramiro <subincor wrote: > > Just as an aside, pot calling the kettle black and such - " claims without evidence " . Would you like to share with the group on the basis of which study or research you claim that Qi Gong constitutes errm, to be blunt, mind control? Just in case you try pass it off to me, no one in this conversation, except for you, said or implied that Qi Gong might " somehow make people more willing to accept claims without evidence " . > I am assuming that it was a baseless assertion. If in fact this assertion has no basis in research, or other types of evidence, then on what basis do you make this assertion? > I am wondering if you will adhere to your standard. > > Hugo > > > establishment_man <establishment_man > > > Does Qigong somehow make people more willing to accept claims > > without evidence? If so, maybe you are right, everyone should > > practice it. And in so doing, it may become easier to adhere to the > > some of the esoteric and (possibly superstitious) claims made in the > > literature of OM. > > > > EM > > > > > > _________ > Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it > now. > http://uk.answers./ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2007 Report Share Posted October 17, 2007 HI All, I think we don't have to stick to the 'rules' in TCM too much. I have been reading a lot about history of TCM recently and have realized that it has undergone great change from being shamanistic( jia gu wen) in the beginning through changing to 'medical practice' resulting in open critic of shamanism by doctors like Bianque to the writing of the classic of the yellow emperor and further through history to more and more embracing more scientific approaches to healing. For example when they found out that 'memory/or activity of the mind' (not sure if I got the meaning fully) doesn't reside in the heart but in the brain. However, I am trying to say, that sometimes I feel that hun, shen, po are terms that could be looked at again and made more modern, maybe adapted to fit more the terms of western thinking. I feel it to be akwardly hard to explain especially hun and po in western terms, ending mostly in saying that those reside in different parts of the body and having different functions (as already layed out in many other posts) and equalling the western term of the soul. However, I am still searching for my own answers in all that material, but end up with more and more questions. Cheers Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2007 Report Share Posted October 17, 2007 Hello All, Forgive me if I pick apart your post a bit Steve. You say that " we don't have to stick to the 'rules' in TCM too much. " You also say that perhaps " that hun, shen, po are terms that could be looked at again and made more modern, maybe adapted to fit more the terms of western thinking. " I have only loosely been following this thread, as I just became a part of this group today, but I might ask you, based on the above quotes: What is ok to remove, and what is ok to keep? Doesn't it seem rather arbitrary to redefine words that we may not personally understand well, and yet keep other definitions that we do understand well? TCM is a result of trying to bring Chinese medicine to a Western audience, it already has lost a lot of the roots with which it was founded on (just to get to the West), should we then strip it of other ambiguous terms because they are not scientific enough? At what point then, does Chinese medicine become biomedicine? I am a person that believes, we as a community in the Western Chinese medicine world are rather blind. Due to the majority of us not being able to read traditional or simplified Chinese, we can neither read the Classics, nor the modern research that is coming out of China. Another way to look at this: is that all science, ours included, is based on a system of natural laws. These laws were discovered by people ages ago -- like Sir Isaac Newton, who discovered Gravity. These laws are then used to construct modern scientific thought, but are not always referenced directly in these modern thoughts. Our science has tried to jump directly to the place of creating modern scientific thought -- when the majority of us don't even know what the " laws " of the medicine are. It is a backward approach to learning, but an approach that didn't take a lot of time or millions of dollars to implement. The result? Many of us all over the Western world struggle with questions about our medicine, that have already been answered in the Classics. I can't tell you how many times I have been reading a Classical text, when a particular case study jumped out at me, or the author of the Classic directly answered a question that I had had about one of my own patients, a question that when I asked my modern peers, Chinese and Western they either couldn't see what I saw, or thought that I was wrapped up in some mystical tradition. Obviously, I am a believer in the Classics -- not to say that their word is the final say, but without knowing what our forefathers of medicine wrote, how can we truly advance as a profession? Aren't we doomed to discuss the same things that they already found answers to? Surely in the 3000 year literary tradition of Chinese medicine, this question of Hun/ Shen / Po has been answered and discussed a thousand times over. I myself would rather have the answer from the Classics, then from some decision by a few modern scholars that for our times Hun/ Shen / Po meant some modern term. To close, I think that part of our problem as a community is that not enough of us know, understand, and truly value " the rules, " enough to begin jumping off into abstract forms of thought on Chinese medicine. I am all for the collective darkness being collectively lifted, and not each of us making up our own way to the light of knowledge. Sincerely, L.Ac. The Database Chinese Medicine steve brinkop <littleprince_s wrote: HI All, I think we don't have to stick to the 'rules' in TCM too much. I have been reading a lot about history of TCM recently and have realized that it has undergone great change from being shamanistic( jia gu wen) in the beginning through changing to 'medical practice' resulting in open critic of shamanism by doctors like Bianque to the writing of the classic of the yellow emperor and further through history to more and more embracing more scientific approaches to healing. For example when they found out that 'memory/or activity of the mind' (not sure if I got the meaning fully) doesn't reside in the heart but in the brain. However, I am trying to say, that sometimes I feel that hun, shen, po are terms that could be looked at again and made more modern, maybe adapted to fit more the terms of western thinking. I feel it to be akwardly hard to explain especially hun and po in western terms, ending mostly in saying that those reside in different parts of the body and having different functions (as already layed out in many other posts) and equalling the western term of the soul. However, I am still searching for my own answers in all that material, but end up with more and more questions. Cheers Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2007 Report Share Posted October 17, 2007 Steve, I think your are right about Soul, Hun, and Po. We should not mention these terms to our WM friends. It does mean nothing to them and it does make us look stupid. It does not convince me either for I do not even know or ever seen them. What do they looklike, smell or feel? Nothing can describe them? Other abstract things we can describe or feel but the three muskateers above we have not experienced at all. The Shen as I understood is like a potential power of a battery. It manifests in the eyes ( clear, dull, dim or disturbed ). When you are happy , alert, lively, energetic your shen is clear, strong as a battery in full charge. In contrast, When you are sick, ill, unhealthy your shen was partially discharged, your battery is low. Other, when you are dispirited, heartbroken, desperated, distress, angry or crazy your shen is not clear and is in confusion. Good TCM should be able to tell it from the eyes, some can be seen in words ( mix-up conversation ). Being professionals I think we should exchange ideas, works and experiences something that is tangible, something that may be seen or describable either in nature or in books, in medicine the results. The memory or the acitivities of the mind you are relating to brain. The brain does not do any jobs at all. It is a place that all chemicals and electrical impulses are taking place there. It function as a CPU ( Central Processing Unit ) in a computer. The CPU is a chip it does not do anything, but all things, calculations and tasks are taking place in there. The samething as a Whitehouse, it does nothing itself but the people inside it. You may reject TCM theory, but I can also reject WM theory of the brain........ But we are all wrong! The theories are the references only. We must start from there and draw all pictures if we want to. For those we said TCM or WM theories are wrong, something must be readjusted either in thowe people or in theories. AGAIN , THEORIES AND WORDS IN PRINTS SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED IN ONE WAY BUT IN MANY........ THEY ARE IDEAS AND THEY SHOULD BE DEVELOPED FROM THOSE IDEAS. THEY ARE THE STARTING POINTS NOT ENDING POINTS. Soul, Hun and Po are the starting points, not ending. But they are not so important in treatments for we TCM have other ways to look at diseases as in inquiries, observation, palpation, osculation. Nam Nguyen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2007 Report Share Posted October 17, 2007 Dr. Namnguyen, I must strongly disagree with you here. If engaging in the topic of Chinese medicine, we must discuss all aspects of the medical tradition. Who cares what our WM friends 'think'? Are we so embarrassed by Chinese medicine that we cannot discuss its full details? Anyone who is truly interested in the subject should try to understand it as completely as possible, not just take what 'fits in' with one's preconceptions. In trying to conform to modern Western expectations, the very soul of Chinese medicine is forgotten. Shen, hun and po are not easily understood because of cultural specifics about mind and spirit that need to be studied in depth. In studying Chinese medicine, one has to also study Chinese culture as well, especially what Chinese medicine means by 'spirit' in the first place. In my own studies and practice, I've found a gold mine of material on the psyche in Chinese medicine in discussions on shen, hun, po, yi and zhi. Medicine is not just about the body, divorcing the mind and emotions. That is post-Cartesian dualism. Medicine includes the entire human being as well. Western medicine's roots, which one can find in the writings of such physicians as Sir William Osler, the great Oxford physician includes these ideas as well. Z " ev Rosenberg On Oct 17, 2007, at 6:15 AM, dr_namnguyen58 wrote: > Steve, > I think your are right about Soul, Hun, and Po. We should not > mention these terms to our WM friends. It does mean nothing to them > and it does make us look stupid. It does not convince me either for I > do not even know or ever seen them. What do they looklike, smell or > feel? Nothing can describe them? Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine Pacific College of Oriental Medicine San Diego, Ca. 92122 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2007 Report Share Posted October 17, 2007 Steve, Why do you think that ancient Chinese ideas about shen/hun/po etc. need to be 'adapted to Western thinking'? Don't you think it is more important to enquire what the Chinese meant about these concepts first? I don't think that the evolution of Chinese medicine is as clear cut as you say. There have been many twists and turns in the road, and after all, you are talking about a medicine that has been around for two thousand years, through many dynasties, and countless billions of people, with over 80,000 texts. A book on this subject I highly recommend is " Innovation in " , edited by Elisabeth Hsu, published by the Needham Research Institute, Cambridge Press. On Oct 16, 2007, at 11:51 PM, steve brinkop wrote: > HI All, > > I think we don't have to stick to the 'rules' in TCM too much. I > have been reading a lot about history of TCM recently and have > realized that it has undergone great change from being shamanistic > ( jia gu wen) in the beginning through changing to 'medical > practice' resulting in open critic of shamanism by doctors like > Bianque to the writing of the classic of the yellow emperor and > further through history to more and more embracing more scientific > approaches to healing. For example when they found out that 'memory/ > or activity of the mind' (not sure if I got the meaning fully) > doesn't reside in the heart but in the brain. However, I am trying > to say, that sometimes I feel that hun, shen, po are terms that > could be looked at again and made more modern, maybe adapted to fit > more the terms of western thinking. I feel it to be akwardly hard > to explain especially hun and po in western terms, ending mostly in > saying that those reside in different parts of the body and having > different functions > (as already layed out in many other posts) and equalling the > western term of the soul. > However, I am still searching for my own answers in all that > material, but end up with more and more questions. > Cheers > > Send instant messages to your online friends http:// > uk.messenger. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2007 Report Share Posted October 17, 2007 Jonathan, You are absolutely correct in your diagnosis. Too many of us are throwing around confusion in the guise of opinion on the subject of Chinese medicine. We should just accept that we are at a very early stage of understanding Chinese medicine in the West, and not ready to really integrate it with Western medical practice until we do. . . On Oct 17, 2007, at 2:53 AM, jon schell wrote: > Our science has tried to jump directly to the place of creating > modern scientific thought -- when the majority of us don't even > know what the " laws " of the medicine are. It is a backward approach > to learning, but an approach that didn't take a lot of time or > millions of dollars to implement. The result? Many of us all over > the Western world struggle with questions about our medicine, that > have already been answered in the Classics. Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine Pacific College of Oriental Medicine San Diego, Ca. 92122 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2007 Report Share Posted October 17, 2007 Hi Zev: You make a very important point, Chinese medicine has gone through many developments, innovations, changes, etc. Much of it we dont even begin to touch upon in schools, just the history of the Eight Extra vessels is quite fascinating, for example, the classics, including Nei Jing, Nan Jing and Jia Yi Jing have NO pathways for the Yin and Yang Wei vessels, they dont exist, later others " revealed " these pathways. Or the Outer Shu points were never mentioned until just before the Ming Dynasty for Shen issues or the Eight Influential points were " revealed " for the first time in the Nan Jing, which for some reason excluded the Divergent Channels. I do thing it would be very beneficial and exciting to have people present understandings on the five shen, the 3hun-7po and Shen in a detailed view with their practical applications, for all of us to learn about these models. We tend to talk about things we dont really know much about. My experience is the Chinese Alchemists, Nei Gong practiioners and Taoists have the most info on this but this has changed thru time as Indeginious philosophy, the many traidtions of taoists, buddhists and confucians added their views. regards, david Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2007 Report Share Posted October 17, 2007 Well said Steve, Although I am not a scholar in the anthropological beginnings of CM, I suspect you are right in describing the spirits as having shamanistic origins. This really cuts to the heart of my inquiry. Do we keep these concepts as an active part of our medicine? Or is it better to view them fondly as primitive dimensions of our medicine's history? Keep the comments coming. It remains an interesting subject. EM Chinese Medicine , steve brinkop <littleprince_s wrote: > > HI All, > > I think we don't have to stick to the 'rules' in TCM too much. I have been reading a lot about history of TCM recently and have realized that it has undergone great change from being shamanistic( jia gu wen) in the beginning through changing to 'medical practice' resulting in open critic of shamanism by doctors like Bianque to the writing of the classic of the yellow emperor and further through history to more and more embracing more scientific approaches to healing. For example when they found out that 'memory/or activity of the mind' (not sure if I got the meaning fully) doesn't reside in the heart but in the brain. However, I am trying to say, that sometimes I feel that hun, shen, po are terms that could be looked at again and made more modern, maybe adapted to fit more the terms of western thinking. I feel it to be akwardly hard to explain especially hun and po in western terms, ending mostly in saying that those reside in different parts of the body and having > different functions > (as already layed out in many other posts) and equalling the western term of the soul. > However, I am still searching for my own answers in all that material, but end up with more and more questions. > Cheers > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2007 Report Share Posted October 17, 2007 Zev, I agree with part of your post. You said *Shen, hun and po are not easily understood because of cultural specifics about mind and spirit that need to be studied in depth. In studying Chinese medicine, one has to also study Chinese culture as well, especially what Chinese medicine means by 'spirit' in the first place.* It seems to me that this would be true if we were scholars, or anthropologists. But, since we are doctors it seems to me that the medical principles being applied must be universally true, and not culturally specific. I think that it was the translator, Thomas Cleary who said *Qi is as much Chinese as Electricity is American.* As non-Chinese doctors of CM, shouldn't we accept those aspects of CM that are universally applicable, and reject those aspects that are culturally reliant? EM EM Chinese Medicine , " Z'ev Rosenberg " <zrosenbe wrote: > > Dr. Namnguyen, > I must strongly disagree with you here. If engaging in the topic > of Chinese medicine, we must discuss all aspects of the medical > tradition. Who cares what our WM friends 'think'? Are we so > embarrassed by Chinese medicine that we cannot discuss its full > details? Anyone who is truly interested in the subject should try to > understand it as completely as possible, not just take what 'fits in' > with one's preconceptions. In trying to conform to modern Western > expectations, the very soul of Chinese medicine is forgotten. Shen, > hun and po are not easily understood because of cultural specifics > about mind and spirit that need to be studied in depth. In studying > Chinese medicine, one has to also study Chinese culture as well, > especially what Chinese medicine means by 'spirit' in the first place. > In my own studies and practice, I've found a gold mine of > material on the psyche in Chinese medicine in discussions on shen, > hun, po, yi and zhi. Medicine is not just about the body, divorcing > the mind and emotions. That is post-Cartesian dualism. Medicine > includes the entire human being as well. Western medicine's roots, > which one can find in the writings of such physicians as Sir William > Osler, the great Oxford physician includes these ideas as well. > > Z " ev Rosenberg > On Oct 17, 2007, at 6:15 AM, dr_namnguyen58 wrote: > > > Steve, > > I think your are right about Soul, Hun, and Po. We should not > > mention these terms to our WM friends. It does mean nothing to them > > and it does make us look stupid. It does not convince me either for I > > do not even know or ever seen them. What do they looklike, smell or > > feel? Nothing can describe them? > > > Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine > Pacific College of Oriental Medicine > San Diego, Ca. 92122 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2007 Report Share Posted October 17, 2007 Good questions. However, while Shen/hun/po/yi/zhi may be culturally specific constructs, we can still learn a lot from them as part of Chinese jing/shen bing xue or essence-spirit disorder theory, including Chinese concepts of spirit vis a vis viscera/bowel theory. It can give us some important tools in practice when dealing with issues of mind, emotions and their relationship to physical health. On Oct 17, 2007, at 9:23 AM, establishment_man wrote: > Zev, > > I agree with part of your post. You said > > *Shen, hun and po are not easily understood because of cultural > specifics about mind and spirit that need to be studied in depth. > In studying Chinese medicine, one has to also study Chinese culture > as well, especially what Chinese medicine means by 'spirit' in the > first place.* > > It seems to me that this would be true if we were scholars, or > anthropologists. But, since we are doctors it seems to me that the > medical principles being applied must be universally true, and not > culturally specific. I think that it was the translator, Thomas > Cleary who said *Qi is as much Chinese as Electricity is American.* > > As non-Chinese doctors of CM, shouldn't we accept those aspects of > CM that are universally applicable, and reject those aspects that > are culturally reliant? > > EM > EM > > Chinese Medicine , " Z'ev > Rosenberg " <zrosenbe wrote: > > > > Dr. Namnguyen, > > I must strongly disagree with you here. If engaging in the > topic > > of Chinese medicine, we must discuss all aspects of the medical > > tradition. Who cares what our WM friends 'think'? Are we so > > embarrassed by Chinese medicine that we cannot discuss its full > > details? Anyone who is truly interested in the subject should try > to > > understand it as completely as possible, not just take what 'fits > in' > > with one's preconceptions. In trying to conform to modern > Western > > expectations, the very soul of Chinese medicine is forgotten. > Shen, > > hun and po are not easily understood because of cultural > specifics > > about mind and spirit that need to be studied in depth. In > studying > > Chinese medicine, one has to also study Chinese culture as well, > > especially what Chinese medicine means by 'spirit' in the first > place. > > In my own studies and practice, I've found a gold mine of > > material on the psyche in Chinese medicine in discussions on > shen, > > hun, po, yi and zhi. Medicine is not just about the body, > divorcing > > the mind and emotions. That is post-Cartesian dualism. Medicine > > includes the entire human being as well. Western medicine's > roots, > > which one can find in the writings of such physicians as Sir > William > > Osler, the great Oxford physician includes these ideas as well. > > > > Z " ev Rosenberg > > On Oct 17, 2007, at 6:15 AM, dr_namnguyen58 wrote: > > > > > Steve, > > > I think your are right about Soul, Hun, and Po. We should not > > > mention these terms to our WM friends. It does mean nothing to > them > > > and it does make us look stupid. It does not convince me either > for I > > > do not even know or ever seen them. What do they looklike, smell > or > > > feel? Nothing can describe them? > > > > > > Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine > > Pacific College of Oriental Medicine > > San Diego, Ca. 92122 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2007 Report Share Posted October 17, 2007 Zev, There is a very clear reason why, as Steve says, *ancient Chinese ideas about shen/hun/po etc. need to be 'adapted to Western thinking'* Modern western thinking is based largely upon reason, science and a previously unimagined understanding of the physical realities of the universe. Contrast this to the world of ancient thinkers (Chinese or otherwise), which was largely founded on primitive notions and magical thinking. While it is true that many of the ideas that emerged from the ancient Chinese culture have withstood the test of time, and demonstrated their medical value, I question whether it is necessary to perpetuate the mystical notions of into the modern medical landscape, and retain those artifacts of magical thinking as an integral component of Modern . Must we keep the bathwater, when it is only the baby that seems to be currently relevant? And, if we insist on keeping the bathwater (to drive the metaphor a bit further), doesn't that makes us anthropologists rather than doctors? EM Chinese Medicine , " Z'ev Rosenberg " <zrosenbe wrote: > > Steve, > Why do you think that ancient Chinese ideas about shen/hun/po > etc. need to be 'adapted to Western thinking'? Don't you think it is > more important to enquire what the Chinese meant about these concepts > first? > I don't think that the evolution of Chinese medicine is as clear > cut as you say. There have been many twists and turns in the road, > and after all, you are talking about a medicine that has been around > for two thousand years, through many dynasties, and countless > billions of people, with over 80,000 texts. > A book on this subject I highly recommend is " Innovation in > " , edited by Elisabeth Hsu, published by the Needham > Research Institute, Cambridge Press. > > > On Oct 16, 2007, at 11:51 PM, steve brinkop wrote: > > > HI All, > > > > I think we don't have to stick to the 'rules' in TCM too much. I > > have been reading a lot about history of TCM recently and have > > realized that it has undergone great change from being shamanistic > > ( jia gu wen) in the beginning through changing to 'medical > > practice' resulting in open critic of shamanism by doctors like > > Bianque to the writing of the classic of the yellow emperor and > > further through history to more and more embracing more scientific > > approaches to healing. For example when they found out that 'memory/ > > or activity of the mind' (not sure if I got the meaning fully) > > doesn't reside in the heart but in the brain. However, I am trying > > to say, that sometimes I feel that hun, shen, po are terms that > > could be looked at again and made more modern, maybe adapted to fit > > more the terms of western thinking. I feel it to be akwardly hard > > to explain especially hun and po in western terms, ending mostly in > > saying that those reside in different parts of the body and having > > different functions > > (as already layed out in many other posts) and equalling the > > western term of the soul. > > However, I am still searching for my own answers in all that > > material, but end up with more and more questions. > > Cheers > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http:// > > uk.messenger. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2007 Report Share Posted October 17, 2007 IF you change this you are cutting out the soul of TCM.IF I wanted a medicine system that divorced the mind,body spirit, a system doomed to be ineffective, i would stay with western medicine.TCM is one of the few systems of medicine that trully addresses the whole body as it is, with the soul, the spirit, the emotions.To downgrade the study of TCM to divorce it's soul is to gravel in the pits of inadequate western medicine, to progress backwards into Newtonian Physics and to literrally " lose the heart and soul of balance and health " , don't do it, don't reduce the art of healing to a physical entity only.The mechanistic view devoid of the 80 % more than the physical body is what the Chinese were such good observers of......wow, i can't believe this even came up in discussion for TCM.Sincerely,Patricia Jordan DVM,CVA,CTCVM & Herbology : establishment_man: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:14:32 +0000TCM - Re: The Soul / Shen / Hun etc. Well said Steve,Although I am not a scholar in the anthropological beginnings of CM, I suspect you are right in describing the spirits as having shamanistic origins.This really cuts to the heart of my inquiry. Do we keep these concepts as an active part of our medicine? Or is it better to view them fondly as primitive dimensions of our medicine's history?Keep the comments coming. It remains an interesting subject.EM--- In Chinese Medicine , steve brinkop <littleprince_s wrote:>> HI All, > > I think we don't have to stick to the 'rules' in TCM too much. I have been reading a lot about history of TCM recently and have realized that it has undergone great change from being shamanistic( jia gu wen) in the beginning through changing to 'medical practice' resulting in open critic of shamanism by doctors like Bianque to the writing of the classic of the yellow emperor and further through history to more and more embracing more scientific approaches to healing. For example when they found out that 'memory/or activity of the mind' (not sure if I got the meaning fully) doesn't reside in the heart but in the brain. However, I am trying to say, that sometimes I feel that hun, shen, po are terms that could be looked at again and made more modern, maybe adapted to fit more the terms of western thinking. I feel it to be akwardly hard to explain especially hun and po in western terms, ending mostly in saying that those reside in different parts of the body and having> different functions> (as already layed out in many other posts) and equalling the western term of the soul.> However, I am still searching for my own answers in all that material, but end up with more and more questions. > Cheers> > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]> _______________ Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook – together at last. Get it now. http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=CL100626971033 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2007 Report Share Posted October 17, 2007 CHA, For all those interested in this post, I recommend you to the works of Ken Wilber especially his book " A Breif hx of Everything " . His model clearly looks at the developmental stages of human/socities that can easily be correlated to OM. This helped me out dramatically with the issues posed in this post. Basically, each stage of OM's evolution has its " partial truths " and indeed its own problems and short comings. KW's theory also maintains that as the people, sociteis, and medicines evolve, they are inherently finding more and more " truth " . He definelty finds folley in romanticsim, as do I, though it is prevalent in OM. His theory clearly states that the best we can do is incorporate the partial truths of premodern, modern and postmodern sources, and to integrate them. This is what I believe we are all trying to do in some way or another. His model will help us! Dave V Chinese Medicine , steve brinkop <littleprince_s wrote: > > HI All, > > I think we don't have to stick to the 'rules' in TCM too much. I have been reading a lot about history of TCM recently and have realized that it has undergone great change from being shamanistic( jia gu wen) in the beginning through changing to 'medical practice' resulting in open critic of shamanism by doctors like Bianque to the writing of the classic of the yellow emperor and further through history to more and more embracing more scientific approaches to healing. For example when they found out that 'memory/or activity of the mind' (not sure if I got the meaning fully) doesn't reside in the heart but in the brain. However, I am trying to say, that sometimes I feel that hun, shen, po are terms that could be looked at again and made more modern, maybe adapted to fit more the terms of western thinking. I feel it to be akwardly hard to explain especially hun and po in western terms, ending mostly in saying that those reside in different parts of the body and having > different functions > (as already layed out in many other posts) and equalling the western term of the soul. > However, I am still searching for my own answers in all that material, but end up with more and more questions. > Cheers > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2007 Report Share Posted October 17, 2007 So EM, are you saying that we should discard everything that we do not understand? That, in my very humble opinion, is a very sad existance. " Hey, i don't understand it, forget it, it does not exist, that is only rubbish " . Imagine where would we be if it weren't for those few who had a wild idea, who saw the world with different eyes. No Cristopher Columbus, no Aristoteles, Plato, Socrates, forget about Alexander the Great who founded an Alexandria everywhere he went, no ayurvedic texts, no Christ, Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tze or Profet Muhammed. No Graham, Bell for that matter. What about those who dreamt with free republics, free from opression from far away lands and kings? Where they not in another level? " I don't understand freedom of speech, or thought, or cult, so it does not exist, and everyone who says otherwise is a crimial or a liar or a... " Are we supposed to discard everything that makes un unconfortable, that makes us think, that thing that makes life a unique experience? I am no robot or computer, i have my opinion as everyone in this planet regardless nationality. If someone is going to " heal " me and not understand me? can a doctor/therapist, whatever you call it be able to really hellp me if he/she doesn't understand my background? Someone here in this post said he has never seen the shen or the po or the hun. Is that person really looking at who is in front of him? It is very, very common to say " do you believe in love? but you can't see it " of course you can! A wise man once told me, that i can't look at the mind/heart (buddhist wise man), but you CAN see it, you can look at how the person acts, you can hear it, just by listening to the words a person is saying, you can feel it bu looking at the expression on someone's face, you can touch it by the way a person responds to your touch, all you have to do is not be lazy and will to do it. A woman 33 years of age, main problems: anger and strong nightmares every day, so strong, person does not want to go to sleep out of fear from her nightmares. As i recall, Hun is the spirit that lives in the liver, it has the ability to wander, and manifests itself in oniric activities. What is this person telling me? Where is the imbalance? Just by that i start thinking of the liver, further conversation reveals, legs cramping, loss of hair due to stress. Is there here any " data " that a modern-medicine doctor can use? I am not sure, my father is the surgeon. But her WOOD is screaming at me. Yes, wood. Wood is wind, the Hun resides in wood, where there is wood there is wind, it is spring, movement....What did i do? just 4 needles to balance her WOOD. No nightmares after the first session,... " Hey but i don't understand that! " or " I cannot tell her it is her wood that is not harmonious because she will laugh at me or i won't have the respect from M.D's " I couldn't care less what M.D's think of me, and if i had not tried to understand what Hun was or Shen or Po, how could i really understand what the problem is? Hw could i try to help spomeone if the only manifestations are those in the emotional realm? " Hey got to the shrink and get some pills to eliminate your dreams, or some prozac for your depression, or... " Someone else said in this thread words not meaning anything anymore, and that is a shame, because that speaks terrible of our culture, whichever it is, it speaks real bad about modern society, because we don't care anymore about or lives, about our emotions, just about fast food and a " quicky " , no quality time, no time to slow down and smell the roses. I believe we can do much better, listening to the person or people we have in front of us, not only from a " medical " point of view, but for the whole life. EM, how can anyone separate him/herself from their origins? I don't believe there is such a way, just the same happens with everything in life, including TCM, do you know hou much you're going to miss out on, how much yor patients are going to miss out on? And how much you have to win if you took those shamanistic origins and worked with them? " Hey, forget shamans and medicine men " Those traditions have been healing people since the beggining of time, how unvaluable is all that oral heritage, but some " cientific people -more intelligent than the rest of us mortals " say that they are not important anymore and should be discarded and only believe in what they say? As a final note, western medicine has the symbol of a snake and a staff, as you may well know it comes from Asclepios, The Greek God of Medicine and Healing, who offended Zeus by accepting money for bringing back the dead, why not tell them to loose the symbol, not take money and treat all patienst as " do not resucitate " ? > Online Etymology Dictionary > <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/etymon.html> - Cite This Source > <http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?qh=resuscitate & ia=etymon> - > Share This <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/resuscitate#sharethis> > resuscitate > 1532, earlier resuscit (c.1375), from L.L. resuscitationem, from L. > resuscitatus, pp. of resuscitare " rouse again, revive, " from re- > " again " + suscitare " to raise, revive, " from sub " (up from) under " + > citare " to summon " (see cite > <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cite>). Juan -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2007 Report Share Posted October 17, 2007 I am familiar with Ken Wilber's works, and he is a brilliant thinker indeed. However, I think judging OM as having only 'partial truth' is the height of arrogance. Who are we to judge that, coming from the outside without a full knowledge of the medicine we propose to study? And what medicine has the 'total truth'? And to accuse it of romanticism, come on! This was and is the medicine of billions of people, through epidemics, childbirth, and the full range of human illness. On Oct 17, 2007, at 10:40 AM, dmvitello01 wrote: > CHA, > > For all those interested in this post, I recommend you to the works > of Ken Wilber especially his book " A Breif hx of Everything " . His > model clearly looks at the developmental stages of human/socities > that can easily be correlated to OM. This helped me out > dramatically with the issues posed in this post. > > Basically, each stage of OM's evolution has its " partial truths " and > indeed its own problems and short comings. KW's theory also > maintains that as the people, sociteis, and medicines evolve, they > are inherently finding more and more " truth " . He definelty finds > folley in romanticsim, as do I, though it is prevalent in OM. His > theory clearly states that the best we can do is incorporate the > partial truths of premodern, modern and postmodern sources, and to > integrate them. This is what I believe we are all trying to do in > some way or another. His model will help us! > > Dave V > > Chinese Medicine , steve brinkop > <littleprince_s wrote: > > > > HI All, > > > > I think we don't have to stick to the 'rules' in TCM too much. I > have been reading a lot about history of TCM recently and have > realized that it has undergone great change from being shamanistic( > jia gu wen) in the beginning through changing to 'medical practice' > resulting in open critic of shamanism by doctors like Bianque to the > writing of the classic of the yellow emperor and further through > history to more and more embracing more scientific approaches to > healing. For example when they found out that 'memory/or activity of > the mind' (not sure if I got the meaning fully) doesn't reside in > the heart but in the brain. However, I am trying to say, that > sometimes I feel that hun, shen, po are terms that could be looked > at again and made more modern, maybe adapted to fit more the terms > of western thinking. I feel it to be akwardly hard to explain > especially hun and po in western terms, ending mostly in saying that > those reside in different parts of the body and having > > different functions > > (as already layed out in many other posts) and equalling the > western term of the soul. > > However, I am still searching for my own answers in all that > material, but end up with more and more questions. > > Cheers > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends > http://uk.messenger. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2007 Report Share Posted October 17, 2007 EM, I have to question your judgment of ancient Chinese medicine as irrational or mystical, the Chinese are a very practical people for the most part, and the principles of such texts as the Su Wen are very practical indeed. What appears to be irrational or superstitious, such as the idea of demons and ghosts, may just be another way of looking at mind illusions and hallucinations. In one system, the source of these phenomena are external forces, in another, projections of an ill mind and/or brain. In other words, there is much of value in these concepts of 'spirit' that you just reject outright without thorough examination. While there are aspects of Chinese medical tradition that may not be as relevant as other parts, I know few individuals in the West with the knowledge base to decide what is relevant and what is not. I personally would like to figure that out for myself through study and examination, and not rely on other's opinions unless they are truly experts in the field. We need access to the entire tradition, not a pre-edited, pre-digested one. The Chinese have done much of this editing for themselves, and we need to respect what they've found works in their national medical system. But that doesn't mean that we won't find gems that they've overlooked. I also don't think that the present state of what you call the medical landscape should determine what is relevant or not, what works or not. There are tremendous problems in the modern medical landscape, and Chinese medicine may provide some insights to rectify some of these problems. On Oct 17, 2007, at 10:01 AM, establishment_man wrote: > Zev, > > There is a very clear reason why, as Steve says, *ancient Chinese > ideas about shen/hun/po etc. need to be 'adapted to Western > thinking'* > > Modern western thinking is based largely upon reason, science and a > previously unimagined understanding of the physical realities of the > universe. Contrast this to the world of ancient thinkers (Chinese or > otherwise), which was largely founded on primitive notions and > magical thinking. While it is true that many of the ideas that > emerged from the ancient Chinese culture have withstood the test of > time, and demonstrated their medical value, I question whether it is > necessary to perpetuate the mystical notions of > into the modern medical landscape, and retain those artifacts of > magical thinking as an integral component of Modern . > > Must we keep the bathwater, when it is only the baby that seems to > be currently relevant? And, if we insist on keeping the bathwater > (to drive the metaphor a bit further), doesn't that makes us > anthropologists rather than doctors? > > EM > > Chinese Medicine , " Z'ev > Rosenberg " <zrosenbe wrote: > > > > Steve, > > Why do you think that ancient Chinese ideas about shen/hun/po > > etc. need to be 'adapted to Western thinking'? Don't you think it > is > > more important to enquire what the Chinese meant about these > concepts > > first? > > I don't think that the evolution of Chinese medicine is as > clear > > cut as you say. There have been many twists and turns in the > road, > > and after all, you are talking about a medicine that has been > around > > for two thousand years, through many dynasties, and countless > > billions of people, with over 80,000 texts. > > A book on this subject I highly recommend is " Innovation in > > " , edited by Elisabeth Hsu, published by the > Needham > > Research Institute, Cambridge Press. > > > > > > On Oct 16, 2007, at 11:51 PM, steve brinkop wrote: > > > > > HI All, > > > > > > I think we don't have to stick to the 'rules' in TCM too much. > I > > > have been reading a lot about history of TCM recently and have > > > realized that it has undergone great change from being > shamanistic > > > ( jia gu wen) in the beginning through changing to 'medical > > > practice' resulting in open critic of shamanism by doctors like > > > Bianque to the writing of the classic of the yellow emperor and > > > further through history to more and more embracing more > scientific > > > approaches to healing. For example when they found out > that 'memory/ > > > or activity of the mind' (not sure if I got the meaning fully) > > > doesn't reside in the heart but in the brain. However, I am > trying > > > to say, that sometimes I feel that hun, shen, po are terms that > > > could be looked at again and made more modern, maybe adapted to > fit > > > more the terms of western thinking. I feel it to be akwardly > hard > > > to explain especially hun and po in western terms, ending mostly > in > > > saying that those reside in different parts of the body and > having > > > different functions > > > (as already layed out in many other posts) and equalling the > > > western term of the soul. > > > However, I am still searching for my own answers in all that > > > material, but end up with more and more questions. > > > Cheers > > > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http:// > > > uk.messenger. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2007 Report Share Posted October 17, 2007 Following this thread has been interesting… It seems to me that similar points of view have been presented on other topics in this group. When I read the many interesting opinions, I always feel that a more basic and fundamental question is being passed over…IMO, this question comes first and the other discussions are premature What, exactly, IS ? I think we need to ask ourselves this question and I’d be very interested to read the answers from those who have been posting their stances and opinions! I would say this in parting… We need to be very careful with succumbing to Ethnocentrism…forgive my judgment, but I have interpreted some posts in this way. Is there such a thing as “Tempro-centrism”? I think that our society has a powerful bias of superiority…not only do we find it difficult to validate the experiences of other individuals, but also people of other cultures and maybe to the greatest extent, people of another time. We, as modern Westerners, think that new knowledge is somehow always superior to wisdom knowledge…we seem to think that the solutions are always in the future…are they? Why does the Nei Jing Su Wen start with the admonishment of not being hung up on the small things in life? Why did they tell us that this action would make our lives shorter and less fulfilling? Finally…I forget who posted this idea…but I must say that it might be the most important point… Maybe we need to spend a couple hundred years trying to truly learn and understand the real essence of this medicine before we start fixing it, modifying it and using “cut and paste” mentalities toward it…. Just a liver qi point of view Stephen Woodley LAc -- http://www.fastmail.fm - A no graphics, no pop-ups email service Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2007 Report Share Posted October 17, 2007 Zev, I agree with a lot of what you've said. I think Chnese Medicine needs a lot more study and research. I do not *reject outright* any aspects of . However, I also do not accept any aspects on faith alone. What I am suggesting is that claims must be proven, and that the burden of proof lies with the person or group who makes the claim. Instead of characterizing my views as an outright rejection, I think a more accurate way to state my position would be an available skeptic. If somebody could demonstrate the existence of a " Spirit, " for example, or a " Ghost " as discussed in , then I would be very curious to understand that phenomena. It is silly to ask me to prove that they do not exist, because it is not my claim that they don't. Instead, it is the claim of CM literature that such things do exist, and is therefore the responsibility of the proponents to provide a compelling rationale for such claims. This seems to be the crux of much of the polarization on this topic. On the one hand is rejection of that which can not be quantified, and on the other hand is kind of religiosity, which purports a blind allegiance to the entirety of CM, despite the lack of any compellng rationale for many of its components. EM Chinese Medicine , " Z'ev Rosenberg " <zrosenbe wrote: > > EM, > I have to question your judgment of ancient Chinese medicine as > irrational or mystical, the Chinese are a very practical people for > the most part, and the principles of such texts as the Su Wen are > very practical indeed. What appears to be irrational or > superstitious, such as the idea of demons and ghosts, may just be > another way of looking at mind illusions and hallucinations. In one > system, the source of these phenomena are external forces, in > another, projections of an ill mind and/or brain. In other words, > there is much of value in these concepts of 'spirit' that you just > reject outright without thorough examination. > > While there are aspects of Chinese medical tradition that may not > be as relevant as other parts, I know few individuals in the West > with the knowledge base to decide what is relevant and what is not. > I personally would like to figure that out for myself through study > and examination, and not rely on other's opinions unless they are > truly experts in the field. We need access to the entire tradition, > not a pre-edited, pre-digested one. The Chinese have done much of > this editing for themselves, and we need to respect what they've > found works in their national medical system. But that doesn't mean > that we won't find gems that they've overlooked. > > I also don't think that the present state of what you call the > medical landscape should determine what is relevant or not, what > works or not. There are tremendous problems in the modern medical > landscape, and Chinese medicine may provide some insights to rectify > some of these problems. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.